Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was self-learning Do Carmo's Riemannian Geometry, there is a step in the proof of Gauss's Lemma what I can't quite figure out.

Since $d\,\exp_p$ is linear and, by the definition of $\exp_p$, $$ \langle (d\,\exp_p)_v(v),(d\,\exp_p)_v(w_T)\rangle=\langle v,w_T\rangle. $$

So I went on wikipedia hoping to find something that can help me figure this out.

I did find something. HERE. It says that $(d\,\exp_p)_v(v)=v$. In order to do that, it constructs that curve $\alpha(t)$ with $\alpha(0)=v$, $\alpha'(0)=v$. And it gives $\alpha(t)=(t+1)v$. I agree with all these. Then it argues that you can view $\alpha (t)=vt$ since it's just a shift of parametrization. Okay. I am okay with that. But in this case, should $(d\,\exp_p)_v(v)={d\over dt}(\exp_po \alpha(t))|_{t=1}$, instead of evaluating the derivative at $t=0$ as argued in wiki?

Also, I found myself really uncomfortable with all the abuse of notations in Differential Geometry. Like here, the identification of the $T_p M$ and $T_v(T_p M)$ freaks me out. Does this mean that when a local coordinate system is picked, $T_p M$ under the natural basis will be the same as $R^n$, and so does $T_v (T_p M)$?

share|cite|improve this question
$T_p M$ is a real vector space, and in any real vector space $V$ (with a chosen basis or not!) there is a canonical linear isomorphism $V \cong T_v V$, for all "points" $v$ in $V$. There's nothing to freak out about at all here! – Zhen Lin Jul 27 '12 at 5:52
@ZhenLin Thank you for the clarification! – henryforever14 Jul 27 '12 at 8:08
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The equation you are citing in combination with the reasoning you are citing, too, is used in do Carmo only for $w_T$ parallel to $v$. Otherwise the equation would be still correct (that is the content of the Gauss lemma) but requires a different justification (as presented later on in Do Carmo).

If $w_T$ is parallel to $v$ then $\exp_p(tw)$ is just a parametrization of the geodesic through $p$ in direction $v$ with constant speed $|w|$ (this is where the definition of $\exp$ is used) and the derivative in your formula can be computed as the derivative of this geodesic w.r.t to $t$, so it is simply the tangent vector to that geodesic of length $|w|$ in the point under examination.

'Abuse' of notation in the way you describe it is quite common in Differential Geometry whenever possible, cause otherwise equations are often quite clumsy. A (slightly) more formal notation can be found, e.g., in Klingenbergs Riemannian Geometry.

share|cite|improve this answer
I assume you mean $\exp_p (tw_T)$. But I would like to know why the method used in Wiki is also right. By the definition of the differential of a map, to compute $(d\,\exp_p)_v(v)$, one construct a curve $\alpha(t)$, with $\alpha(0)=v$(the point where the differential is evaluated) and $\alpha'(0)=v$ (the direction). So a candidate for such $\alpha(t)$ would be $\alpha(t)=(t+1)v$. Now, by definition, $$(d\,\exp_p)_v(v)={d\over dt}(\exp_po \alpha(t))|_{t=0}={d\over dt}\gamma(1,p,(t+1)v)|_{t=0}={d\over dt}\gamma(t+1,p,v)|_{t=0}$$And then, how does it conclude that the result is $v$? – henryforever14 Jul 27 '12 at 7:59
I think the result should be the parallel transport of $v$ along the geodesic at the point $\exp_p(v)$. This makes sense, and it yields what I need. Because Parallel transportation preserves the inner product if the connection is compatible with the metric. – henryforever14 Jul 27 '12 at 10:10
@henryforever14 The $v$ was a typo, thanks for pointing that out. The curve $\exp_p \circ\alpha$ is just the geodesic I mentioned, by definition of $\exp_p$. Therefore the result of the differential in direction $v$ is the tangent to the geodesic in the point under consideration, this is what you wrote down in your comment. This is not $v$, but the parallel transport of $v$, since, yes, the tangent of a constant speed geodesic is parallel along the geodesic. I don't know whether the reasoning in Wikipedia is correct. – user20266 Jul 27 '12 at 10:16
Now that you confirmed what I wrote was right, there's definitely some mistake in Wiki. Thanks a lot. For beginners like me, some times it's hard to tell right from wrong. – henryforever14 Jul 27 '12 at 10:22

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.